Comment by Jeff H on August 18, 2011 at 1:20pm

 

interesting... thanks doug.

Comment by Jeff H on August 18, 2011 at 1:42pm

Source

 
Evolution? Impossible!
We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.

Refute evolution in less than three minutes with this exciting mini-video from Check This Out! (a DVD or download featuring six warp-speed videos sure to spice up your teaching). Share everywhere.
In fact, refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments—though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be, well, not even scientifically viable.

 

Where’d You Get Your Information, Bub?
Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.

The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

 
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.

Original Recipe
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.

You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).

Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.

All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show is just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)

And Yet We’re Here
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.

The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual.

Pick it up, dust it off if you need, and read it. There’s even some good news in there for you.

Comment by doug on August 19, 2011 at 4:23am

Great points, Jeff.  And as I am sure you know, evolution is simply a religion, since it takes faith to believe in it, like anything else that can not be proven. 

My point on this post was that of the book, which was that Darwin was continually sick since his conscience was getting to him, because of what he was intending to publish (and update or edit), and because he plagiarized nearly everything he wrote.   

Comment by Alex Heyden on August 19, 2011 at 6:58am

A solid half of my academic background is based on the experimental reproduction of evolution. Gene splicing is expensive. Natural selection is cheap. Just sayin'.

Comment by doug on August 19, 2011 at 2:17pm

That may well be, but no new species (or kinds, to be more accurate) have ever been produced or made.  Insects may become resistant to insecticides, but they are still the same insects.  It is just a population shift.

And all of those efforts are directed by intelligent people, rather than being random mutations, that supposedly add information. 

Plus the point, again, is that what Darwin was plagiaristically proposing was causing him much guilt, which apparently was the cause of his continual psychosomatic illnesses...he was kicking against the pricks, so to speak.  And after he back-pedaled on his ideas (in the 6th edition), the symptoms subsided.    

Comment by Alex Heyden on August 19, 2011 at 3:36pm

Darwin is to evolution as Freud is to psychology: he was wrong on nearly every detail, but the big idea was right enough that the people who came after him cleaned up. I'm also unaware of any claims of plagiarism. I'm also highly indifferent to his health. Like I said, experimental reproduction.

On the note of "no new species," this year's big advancement in evolutionary study is forcing yeast to evolve into a multicellular organism in the lab. (Most biologists were not overly impressed, because yeast has a multicellular ancestor and no one is surprised anymore that evolution is real.)

Comment by Jeff H on August 19, 2011 at 4:07pm

 

I'm no biologist, but that doesn't seem like evolution to me. It seems more like there is are which yeast well take a multicellular form. It seems that the conditions were such that it took that form in the past, and scientists recently made it happen again. Instead of evolution it seems a natural ability of yeast that we were heretofore unable to cause to manifest.

Comment by Alex Heyden on August 19, 2011 at 6:26pm

If you're ok with "it seems that the conditions were such that it took that form in the past," then you're ok with evolution, and all's good! I certainly won't pick a fight over the initial abiogenesis. We have no idea how that happened. I think it's a wild leap to "we don't know, so Genesis is right," but hey, that's me.

Comment by Jeff H on August 19, 2011 at 6:51pm

 

at least you are sensible Alex... Initial Abogenesis as it stands to me takes more faith then the Genesis account. 

Comment by doug on August 20, 2011 at 9:05am

There are many books and references to Darwin's plagiarism...perhaps primarily from his grandfather Erasmus's book Zoonomia, and then also from Alfred Wallace.  These things are rather well documented. 

I will agree with you, Alex, that Darwin was wrong on nearly every detail...but for a different reason:  none of the details are valid.  Evolution has become (and really always was) a religion...an explanation for the origin of living things without invoking God.

Evolution cannot be conclusively proven because that would require witnessing and recording macroevolution in real time over long ages.  So therefore it falls into the category of faith, by default.

********

Jeff, that is something I have always maintained also...that it takes more faith to believe in initial abiogenesis, than it does to believe the Genesis account.    

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page